Re: [GIT PULL] sched_ext: Initial pull request for v6.11

[Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>]

On Tue, Aug 13, 2024 at 09:14:18AM -1000, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Peter.
> 
> On Sat, Aug 10, 2024 at 10:45:42PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> ...
> > > It is tricky because the kernel part can't make assumptions about whether
> > > two tasks are even on the same timeline. In the usual scheduling path, this
> > > isn't a problem as the decision is made by the BPF scheduler from balance()
> > > - if it wants to keep running the current task, it doesn't dispatch a new
> > > one. Otherwise, it dispatches the next task.
> > 
> > But I have a question.. don't you clear scx.slice when a task needs to
> > be preempted? That is, why isn't that condition sufficient to determine
> > if curr has precedence over the first queued? If curr and it is still
> > queued and its slice is non-zero, take curr.
> 
> scx.slice is used a bit different from other sched classes mostly because
> there are two layers - the SCX core and the BPF scheduler itself. The BPF
> scheduler uses scx.slice to tell the SCX core to "don't bother asking about
> it until the current slice has been exhausted" - ie. it's a way to offload
> things like tick handling and preemption by higher priority sched classes to
> SCX core. When scx.slice expires, the BPF scheduler's dispatch() is called
> which can then decide whether to replenish the slice of the current task or
> something else should run and so on.

Right, but can't we flip that on its head and state that when scx.slice
is non-zero, we should pick current and not bother asking for what's
next?